March 8, 2007

Ann Althouse is exactly the sort of shallow, petty, mean person who would try to imply that being hot/having breasts means that the be-breasted hot person should be treated like a sex toy and not be taken seriously as a career-minded individual. If there are plenty of mean-spirited assholes out there like Ann—and there are—then yes, having people gossip about you on the internet might mark you as a sexualized female and hurt your career chances, particularly in a field like the law.

[W]here I grew up, people tended to be a bit more blatant [about sexism]. Classic example, since we’ve been talking about the Ann Althouse mentality where women are basically expected to exist for men and certainly not to compete with them academically—when I was in high school, I got in trouble for dress code violations a lot.

Okaaaay.... That's just weird, Amanda. Enjoy your fevered life of the mind, you goofball. Don't go and "gossip about [anyone] on the internet." That would be so wrong.

ADDED: What you are witnessing here is, I think, the full-out punitive mode that victimologists lapse into if you fail to buy into victimology. To be fair, it makes some sense. It's sort of like: Don't believe in victims? I'll show you how it feels to be a victim! So, I can't very well cry "poor me," can I? It would be conceding the (crazy) argument. I'm just going to laugh.

185 comments:

People like Marcotte amaze me. How can anyone go through life so totally consumed by hatred?

I knew a programmer at my old job who suffered a bit of a mental breakdown. Relationship trouble, overwork, etc. One day, while sitting in his cube, he just started yelling, "Assholes! Assholes! Assholes! ASSHOLES!"

I have a feeling that Marcotte, even if she doesn't do so out loud, spends every moment of every day screaming "ASSHOLES!"

Hypothetically, comments about you on a chat board could hurt your career!

Hypothetically, people you don't like are exactly the kind of people who would act that way!

Does anyone have any evidence that any law firm anywhere is googling job candidates to check out chat board gossip? Anyone? And if some law firm was doing that, would you want to work for such spineless creeps? Maybe you're better off, hypothetically, not getting that job.

You're morphing into Rush Limbaugh as we speak. Can't deal with the substance of the post, so call the woman hysterical and hope that your audience's misogyny will prevent them from seeing how silly that is. Luckily, your audience is stupid enough to swallow that one whole.

Did I miss something? Unless I totally misread Prof A's initial post, all the Prof is saying that anonymous and juvenile comments on an internete site about a prospective employee's physical attributes wont enter into the decision. That is right, isnt it?

Nice. A law professor with experience at a big NYC firm is obviously someone who lacks intellect and was subservient to men academically!

This same person, who feels that SPORTS METAPHORS are sexist is really just a misogynist. Amanda, you need to take a few valiums.

Marcotte's only talent is to come up with some of the most inventive blasphemous phrases in the past 5 years. Could you tell us again how the LAX players really raped that girl again, cause that was fun.

As to dress code violations: your attitude demonstrates that you are the type who would have been violating the dressa code and just generally making an ass out of yourself. Given where you got your degree, you shouldn't be throwing around any intellectual pretentions except as compared to pre-schoolers.

Amen, Giles. Talk about projection; that whole comments thread is full of folks who read what they wanted to read in order to rip on the professor here. They didn't actually take the time to parse the post and see what was really being said.

Speaking of the comments thread: Can we say "echo chamber"? I mean damn... those were some of the lamest, dumbest analyses I've ever seen, and I've read the LGF, FDL, Kos, and Atrios sites before. Someone needs to tell those children how to properly deconstruct.

You can laugh at the bizarreness of it, I suppose. But the comment thread over there is just plain weird. I will attribute it to the average age there vs. here, I guess. Eventually, Ms. Marcotte and her readers will grow up, if their heads don't explode first.

Mandy claims that Ann's mentality is that it is a world for men only, and women shouldn't compete academically. Then why the hell is Ann Althouse a law professor and not sitting at home in a June Cleaver dress and high heels, cutting fresh flowers and cooking a pot roast?

I think Marcotte was the model for the bitter feminists in the movie "PCU", who chanted "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, this penis party's got to go"

Amanda: You're morphing into Rush Limbaugh as we speak. Can't deal with the substance of the post, so call the woman hysterical and hope that your audience's misogyny will prevent them from seeing how silly that is.

Too funny. You just did what you accuse Althouse of doing, and in the very same sentence - calling us misogynists because you can't deal with the substance of Ann's post.

will prevent them from seeing how silly that is. Luckily, your audience is stupid enough to swallow that one whole.

Obviously, the audience here is not as stupid as the one you're accustomed to.

Ann said... no reasonable employer would make decisions based on anonymous comments, etc

Henry said... Does anyone have any evidence that any law firm anywhere is googling job candidates to check out chat board gossip?

I think it is known and common practice these days for firms to google names of potential new hires, just as it is for firms to do background and credit checks.

I have heard, but can't prove that firms that send new hire college grads back to their schools the next year to recruit often ask the current employees to check facebook and myspace looking for potential problems in this year's recruits. That is rational behavior.

Oh, and I'm sure that the Defense Security Service and the OMB security staff use all of the above when your average 22 year old is trying to get a security clearance.

Past behavior has consequences. as somebody said on another post, one used to be able to get a clean slate, etc etc. However the internet is global and all marks left there are permanent.

I believe Ann's original claim was that no rational employer would reject a female candidate purely on the basis of anonymous comments about her appearance on the internet....Somehow, Marcotte somehow mutated this into the idea that Ann thinks employers should discriminate against attractive women. This is a remarkable bizarre leap of logic.

That's Marcotte's MO. Distortion to justify her vitrol. Its not that she's incapable of comprehendng what she reads, its that she refuses to.

First a man coming up with that level of crap would be ignored, so Amanda, feel the privilege, your B(?) breasts give you.

And one other thing, no twenty something twit from Austin can ever call me stupid. Go out in the real world for another 25 years and let's talk. Get a real job, worry about health insurance for yourself and some dependents, etc etc.

Inside the echo chamber, you don't have a clue about much and certainly not Ann, just because you are quick on the keyboard, doesn't mean you have any talent, much less worth.

I've come to the conclusion that the important political distinction is not left or right, but stupid and not stupid, with stupid having a particular meaning: feeling absolutely certain of X, even though you have no meaningful evidence to support X nor valid logic to arrive at X.

Sadly, we can find examples of this on both sides of the left-right divide with some evidence that the further away from the center someone is, the less likely they are to be bothered with trivial problems like evidence or logic.

Hmm, a feminist illustrates a post about Ann with a photo of a cat, captioned "Ann strikes again". Then calls Ann sexist.

Sophomoric.

Marcotte is one of those leftists who think sexism, racism, etc are one way streets that flow from white men only. She's a woman, see, so she just CAN'T be sexist! Ann has fallen from her state of grace by her 'right-wingedness', so she can be sexist, in fact is sexiist by default, because all 'conservatives' are naturally sexist (and racist and homophobic... and MEAN!).

I have heard, but can't prove that firms that send new hire college grads back to their schools the next year to recruit often ask the current employees to check facebook and myspace looking for potential problems in this year's recruits. That is rational behavior.

Since they are asking the recruit to violate the facebook and myspace TOS, I say their actions are unethical.

Since they are seeking information that violates the various Federal non-discrimination acts, my guess is that by seeking this information they are making themselves liable for discrimination lawsuits.

Since these are lawyers doing this, I would hope they would be disbarred.

Drill Sgt: I have heard, but can't prove that firms that send new hire college grads back to their schools the next year to recruit often ask the current employees to check facebook and myspace looking for potential problems in this year's recruits. That is rational behavior.

I bet John Edwards wishes he had done that. At the very least, it weeds out the bigots.

This is what I love about this blog. It's like an acid trip tour through a deranged Ripley's Republican Theme Park where no Republican are ever wrong or remotely guilty of anything, under any circumstances, no matter what. And in the Roomful of Mirrors Scooter Libby appears as Joe Wilson behind bars. Or his wife. Or Tim Russert. Or his neighbor. Or Sandy Berger. Or Arianna Huffington.

I think it is known and common practice these days for firms to google names of potential new hires, just as it is for firms to do background and credit checks.

We don't do that where I work, but then it's a design studio, not a law firm.

Well if you google yourself and a lot of chat board gossip is coming up, one solution is to overwhelm the bad with something else. For example, you could start a blog and post attention-getting vitriol against law professors. That should impress future employers.

So, Naked Lunch and Doyle, having read your comments, the readers here are forced to conclude that you agree 100% with, and endorse without hesitation, the comments of Ms. Marcotte and those that are writing comments on her blog.

If Marcotte were interested in the truth, then her distortion of facts would indeed be stupid.

However, Marcotte's social status is actually based on her ability to lead a movement, a group of idealistic people who believe themselves to be 'progressive'. In this context, it is absolutely in her interest to mischaracterize anyone who challenges her rhetoric, to whip up outrage, and to portray dissenters as 'part of the problem'.

I encouraged my last employer to google me (hint: google yourself first before you try this at home just in case there is something there your employer may not like. The internet, I believe, is neutral. Make it an asset rather than a liability.

Based on what I've seen of some of her more imaginative prose, Marcotte could have a tremendously profitable future ahead of her - writing pornography. Not a choice of careers I'd want to be considered adept at, but to each her own.

Can someone explain to me exactly how either of Marcotte's posts are hateful? She is insulting Althouse, but seriously, look at these insults: shallow, petty, mean, mean-spirited, asshole. She needs to be medicated for calling someone an asshole? Do you people realize that Althouse once called a writer a pussy AND a candyass all in the same paragraph? The horror! Let's tie her down and forcefeed her Zoloft until the devil quits her shriveled and blackened soul!

Well, she did manage to make a fairly coherent argument against Althouse, which must seem pretty hateful to people who can't construct anything better than "NEEDS PROZAC LOL".

Go out in the real world for another 25 years and let's talk. Get a real job, worry about health insurance for yourself and some dependents, etc etc.

Intelligence is worrying about health insurance for 25 years? I'm not sure I agree, because it seems that you've done just that and your post is still full of sexist idiocy (Is your first sentence the blogosphere equivalent of "I don't hit girls"? Also, speculating on bra size: classy!). Maybe you should switch your focus to dental or mortgages.

Althouse, it is unbelievable how self-absorbed and whiny you are. Am I misreading, or are you honestly trying to imply here that Marcotte's mention of you is on the same level as whatever harrassment goes on at AutoAdmit? That the articulate reasoning on Pandagon is the same as anonymous rape threats?

What are you talking about? Pandagon is much bigger than Althouse, as well it should be.

Doyle, Doyle.....

You seem to place a premium on "bigness" rather than reputation or excellence.

Marcotte has made herself into a joke. "Cum-guzzling boozehound and militant feminist who deceives and lies while getting into stupid fights she alsways loses because she comes off as half-witted and ill-informed."

Many people visit Pandagon just to laugh at what she posts.By reputation, Marcotte generated a chorus of delight in Breck Boy haters like Vox Day. "Does that idiot actually know who he just hired??? Let's hope he doesn't and Marcotte can inflict serious unwitting damage to him before she is canned."

I would distinguish Althouse from Marcotte in this way. Althouse is a professional, not a mean-spirited asshole though she is a lawyer - that runs a very electic Blog of whatever tickles her fancy, in a fairly articulate manner and with class. Marcotte is a potty mouthed brat interested in attacking others. Althouse sometimes gets into a small detail item that has significance for her or her craft. Marcotte is agenda-driven, and gets more hits because she is part of the nutroots network that scream how big and powerful they are as Lamont goes down in flames and deemed "professionally unsuitable" to be involved in major campaigns.

More important in the Blogosphere community?Althouse, hands down.More important to Far Lefty activists who have figured out the Internet?Marcotte, hands down.

Doyle; No loathing here, just amusement. If I wanted to be a hateful jerk, I'd have to have enough courage to do that to someone's face. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to do it. Like maybe trolling blogs of people I don't like just to snipe at them. I just don't see how that enriches you "life."

Yeah Abe had no reason to be depressed. Clinical depression is not a choice anyway.

Ann Althouse is exactly the sort of shallow, petty, mean person who would try to imply that being hot/having breasts means that the be-breasted hot person should be treated like a sex toy and not be taken seriously as a career-minded individual.

It isn't just insulting, bosox. It's a lie. Ann said nothing of the sort. Insulting someone for something they actually said is a different matter.

Hallucinating positions that people take, then attacking those rather than the ACTUAL positions that people take is either dishonest or nuts. Take your pick.

Did you follow the link that Ann provided? For starters, Marcotte distorts Ann's point [no rational employer would reject a female candidate purely on the basis of anonymous comments about her appearance on the internet] and substitutes her own strawman [Ann thinks employers should discriminate against attractive women] for her fellow bigots ar Pandagon to flail away on.

Marcotte also allows degrading impersonations of Ann to remain in the comments section, while complaining about the degrading comments at AutoAdmit.

Articulate reasoning? Go check out the Pandagon thread. Be sure to wash up before coming back here.

I hate to be a spoilsport and criticize Ms. Marcotte’s writing but there is no such word as “sexualize.” Thus, it is improper to describe someone as a sexualized female.

It is proper to say “sexicate.” Let us use it in a sentence: Harrumph! No, we shall not hire this female applicant for our white shoe firm as she has been sexicated.

But seriously, we ought not make light of the suffering of the amply bejugged.

I know full well the curse of the “hot person.” I look exactly like Daniel Craig except my genitals are truly enormous.

As a result, I have never been hired by a prestigious, big-city law firm. That hurts my feelings a lot and my only consolation has been the kindness shown by the many female partners who have taken the time to follow up a rejection letter with a personal invitation to treat me to lunch at a fancy hotel.

Bosox--I dont purport to speak for Prof Althouse, but it seems to me that Marcotte has taken a line that Althouse wrote (see Giles analysis upthread) and somehow assumed that Althouse would, in fact, state that women exist for the pleasure of men. or some such tripe. You will have to show me exactly where Althouse does that--and if she doesnt say that, Marcotte has attributed a position to Althouse that Althouse does not espouse. That, in short, is dishonest.

As to the comments on the law student's blog, I have yet to see Althouse endorse either the blog or the comments. There is the related issue of whether it is smart to post pictures on a website and trust they wont become a mechanism to objectify you, but that was the subject of comments in an earlier thread.

In short, it appears to me that both Marcotte and you have some difficulty with reading comprehension.

Gasp or yawn? While I believe most of this kind of thing is a yawn, I can't help but be astonished, truly amazed at the lengths some people go to blame others for their problems. As I read Ms. Althouse's post, she was implying that people should toughen up and take this stuff for what it is. As I read Ms. Marcotte's post I understood her implication to be that [whine] women have been injured by those posters at AutoAdmit, and those people need to stop[/whine]". As a role model for my two daughters I prefer Ms. Althouse to Ms. Marcotte.

But I picture everyone as good-looking until I actually see them. And here you were unseen and with this plus factor that your picture was being used. So you had risen to the level of best looking guy in the world! Now, you're wrecking my highly aesthetic mental life.

Amanda said..."You're morphing into Rush Limbaugh as we speak. Can't deal with the substance of the post, so call the woman hysterical and hope that your audience's misogyny will prevent them from seeing how silly that is. Luckily, your audience is stupid enough to swallow that one whole."

Bissage: How dare you! It is an accepted fact that Marcotte is a writer of unparalleled excellence! You should be ashamed of yourself! Next thing you know, someone might point out that Marcotte emotes instead of writes. Someone might even point that Marcotte utilizes vulgarities with abandon in order to disguise an obvious inability engage in reasoned argument.

stoqboy: "As a role model for my two daughters I prefer Ms. Althouse to Ms. Marcotte."

I wish I could have had myself as I am now to use as a role model back when I was in my 20s. I could have done so much more in life if I had figured out what I didn't learn until I was over 50 years old.

I know that fabulous liberation of a thick skin, a sense of humor, and a willingness to let other people have fun. I know how to see a push back for what it is and to stand my ground. It is so easy to push back women, and in the real world, people will take advantage. If you buy into the promise of Pretty Safety World, you will get encapsulated and made irrelevant by people who have more nerve than you.

Ironically, Amanda has a lot of nerve. But the ideas she's purveying will not help women succeed.

Seriously, Ann, what bothers me most about "tempests in teapots" like this (because that is what they really are, after all) is the "push back" designed to ostracize or silence those who disagree, however slightly. Over and over again, I cannot help but notice it is almost always the same people who attempt it (and deny they are doing so while continuing to do it).

There are far more important issues worth discussing - the treatment of Hirsi Ali, to name but one. But these self-important people are too busy looking for enemies under their beds to confront the reality of life in the 21st century.

reality_check - I was wondering if you are the frequent commenter here who once said that they were posting from Germany. (I know that there is a blogger-hack to search blog comments by user-id but I'm too lazy to look it up and use it.)

As one of the few (if not the only) commenters on Althouse that has actually forced Doyle and a few others into fits of anger at their inability to keep up with my comments - known as getting the better of them - I still recognize that they are intelligent voices, seeking often to tease the other political side. They are not hate-filled enemies of Althouse or America.

Amanda Marcotte, however, is exactly what I told you in the comments on the first Althouse posts - hate-filled, immature, morally and mentally underdeveloped.

I do not believe that she should be censored. But - she is not owed any consideration. Her writings are those of someone with a currently wasted life, which makes for every one of her readers wasted time.

That and the fact that to get to facebook means you violated their TOS, and the fact you were a bunch of lawyers knowingly doing so, I would throw the book at you.

The Facebook terms of service are irrelevant; they simply give Facebook the right to terminate your access if you violated them. They have no legal power to prevent anyone from using Facebook content to draw conclusions about Facebook users.

Internet Ronin: The only person I've seen here use the term "hateful" is you.

I hate to interrupt your delusions, but that's probably because I'm also the only person up until my post who used the adjective form.

JohnAnnArbor (and RogerA, and Fen, I suppose): I didn't ask whether it was true or honest or not; I asked how it was hate. Also, nowhere in that sentence does Marcotte claim that Althouse actually said any of that. The actual words used were "would try to imply". The sentence in question links to a post by Marcotte about Althouse's reaction to that picture of Jessica from Feministing. And, yes, that is a nice example of Althousian sexism. I can't remember very many details, but overall the quote seems pretty accurate.

Fen: and substitutes her own strawman [Ann thinks employers should discriminate against attractive women] for her fellow bigots ar Pandagon to flail away on.

Where has Marcotte stated that? The title almost looks like that, except it says "Ann Althouse is exactly the kind of asshole...", key word being "kind".

Well, bosox, if you make that kind of statement, you might want to amplify it by providing supporting documentation. Otherwise, most of us here will conclude that the hateful thoughts were contained entirely within your mind and then projected on to others. Your scatter-gun approach is not a proven winner but a sure loser.

Reality Check -- How is a judge involved in any of this? You think judges magically appear out of thin air to bring forth justice? Who are the parties, to take one example, in your Facebook case? Who is suing whom? Based on what cause of action?

bosox: "Where has Marcotte stated that [Ann thinks employers should discriminate against attractive women]? The title almost looks like that, except it says "Ann Althouse is exactly the kind of asshole...", key word being "kind"."

Could you possibly find a thinner hair to split? Where I'm from, if you say someone is the kind of asshole who thinks X, that's logically identical to just saying they think X.

Ya know, I can't really help you there. I'm not teaching another remedial English course tonight.

Althouse's reaction to that picture of Jessica from Feministing. And, yes, that is a nice example of Althousian sexism. I can't remember very many details, but overall the quote seems pretty accurate.

Details: Althouse questioned Jessica's awareness and judgement. Jessica [cluelessly?] affected a suggestive pose, back arched and breasts thrusts out, while centered in Clinton's photo op. I understand Jessica's counterpoint that she didn't intend it that way, and thats fine. But its not unreasonable to ask why any self-respecting feminist would put herself in that position to begin with. Like a civil rights leader posing with David Duke, unfurling a confederate flag.

But Marcotte's crowd fixated on the "breasts thrust out" remark and distorted the entire point of the thread. Likely because they didn't want to address Jessica's hypocritical comments about how "proud" she was of Clinton's contribution to the feminist movement. They distort to distract. Its intellectually dishonest, like your "kind" disqualifier.

It is worht noting that a couple of commenters here have repeatedly engaged in behavior remarkably similar to that which they are accusing Professor Althouse and others of condoning. [See also: The Shoe: Fits for Thee but not for Me!]

Exactly, Ronin! What's the difference between some dorky law students trading locker room talk on the Internet about a hot 1L and some dorky far-left authoritarian feminazis manhating on a law professor and her cronies and hangers-on in perpetual petulance?

The signal-to-noise ratio in their posts is so high, however, that it just isn't worth the effort to get to the rare gem that actually is worth thinking about much less responding to. (I do admire your high threshold, however ;)

About the only great good that comes of their innumerable comments is that their perverse and disturbing misogyny is well-documented.

So, Naked Lunch and Doyle, having read your comments, the readers here are forced to conclude that you agree 100% with, and endorse without hesitation, the comments of Ms. Marcotte and those that are writing comments on her blog.

LOL. No, I can't endorse or condone even what I write. Blog comments are supposed to a free for all, that's why I chime in. And if you notice I go out of my way not to comment on Ann's personal biz.

As for Amanda, I hardly read her blog, but probably a lot more when Michael Bérubé starts writing there. But what I find funny, and why I tune in, is Amanda is completely unafraid of Republicans and it drives them crazy. They're not used to it.

B: Are you serious? Amanda Marcotte is an enemy of America? You're absolutely right about your superior abilities though; I wouldn't expect anyone to keep up with that level of delusion and pretentiousness.

Internet Ronin: What, exactly, do you want supporting documentation for? Derivation in English? If you aren't one of the commenters that believes that Marcotte is hateful, why would you need to try to refute my argument? That would put us in agreement, and you could use the time saved to sabotage Marcotte's sinister plan for world domination or whatever the hell you conservative kids are up to these days.

Fen: Um, thanks for the summary? The point was that Marcotte was using that sentence to refer to a past event, not Althouse's posts about AutoAdmit.

The title to the post was a response to a series of questions posed by Althouse: What kind of employer denies you a job? Althouse! Which would align her with that kind of employer--the sexist, idiotic kind. I think that it's fair to speculate on what Althouse would actually do if put into a situation where she had hiring power over hot people. That kind of speculation does not equal "Althouse says she wouldn't hire a hot person".

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just the only person that reads Seven Machos's post as "bos0x is creepy and evil" rather than "bos0x is a molester" or "bos0x said that he is a molester".

they didn't want to address Jessica's hypocritical comments about how "proud" she was of Clinton's contribution to the feminist movement.

Huh?

What's hypocritical about a feminist being proud of perhaps the most misogynistic politician of the 20th century?

I mean all he did is commit serial adultry, sexual harassment, sexual assault, alledged (and probable) rape, send powerful women out to lie for him, and call powerless wome "nuts and sluts" when he could get away with it.

It's not lile he pointed to a pubic hair on a Coke can or anything like that.....

Yeah, Lunch. All six of the Republicans who have heard of Marcotte are driven crazy by her. And that's what Republicans want, for people to be scared. We want you to be scared because we want to force free-market solutions and deregulation down your throat.

The funny thing is that Marcotte and Althouse are both the worse kind of full of shit feminists.

I speak as a card-carrying (well t-shirt wearing) feminist for 35 years.

Both are the kind of judgmental idiots that say, I believe feminism is X and you believe Y so you are a women-defeating monster.

The truth is that both Althouse and Marcotte are 2nd wave sexual judgmental feminists. The problem arises that Marcotte likes to claim she is a 3rd waver, but examining her posts demonstrates that she is very judgmental about the sexual practices of married women and all men. Tie that together with Althouse's inability to acknowledge when she makes a mistake, and the observation both of these girls are bullies, and you have what we constantly see:

For the dumbest catfights and dickfights on the Net, visit althouse.blogspot.com or pandagon.net.

Both are full of shit.

Althouse's judgment goes so far as to make the claim that if Althouse who patently ignores her own partisan bias believes X about a politician, than any feminist that doesn't believe X must be the anti-christ.

So Althouse who is a right wing partisan makes unsupported judgmental claims about Clinton and will not pay any attention to anyone that disagrees with her. Althouse claims that is her feminism speaking -- it is her political partisan bias speaking.

But then there is Gahrie who is neither feminist nor democrat and he is in much less of a position to talk. Over and over again, it is clear that Gahrie has no knowledge of the actual facts, and just spews the talking points he found at LGF.

I've often wondered. (All kidding aside, the problem with that, as I see it, is that what gets written supposedly in jest or "character" is often unintentionally self-revealing. YMMV, of course)

Blog comments are supposed to a free for all, that's why I chime in. And if you notice I go out of my way not to comment on Ann's personal biz.

Free-for-alls don't bother me personally. The intentional cruelty of some comments people make about others is something I could happily live without witnessing. The intentional misrepresentation of facts or statements to advance an agenda is, unfortunately, to be expected, but it is still a shame so many engage in it (when it is so easy to fact-check them these days). It is strange how many people engage in mind-reading or reading between the lines on the internet instead of just asking for clarification.

One thing I will never fully comprehend is why so many people who basically post anonymously are so unwilling to ever admit a mistake. But then, I've rarely had that problem in real life, either. Why is it so hard to say, "I was wrong."?

By the way if someone were to argue that none of my assertions about Pres. Clinton were proven (notice ts important, just proof), I would respond that when Clinton plead guilty to lying under oath, he admitted to at least one of them, and showed two more of them to be true. The only charge that a fair minded individual would not accept as true, I labeled alledged.

Hmm, more of that famous conservative polite and respectful conversation?

I'm not a conservative, and if I ever claimed to be polite and respectful I assure you I was being sarcastic.

But I'm not sure what I said that was disrespectful in the post in question. I said bosox was the kind of person who didn't understand the English language. I never implied that he didn't understand the English language himself. What's wrong with being a kind of person who doesn't understand English who actually understands English? Some of my favorite people are people who speak English despite being the kind of people who don't speak English.

Able to form grammatically correct sentences at length, yes. Talented, no.

Marcotte lives in a fantasy world and her writing doesn't engage the world the rest of us live in. It doesn't even work as polemics.

It's like watching a fanfic version of Lord of the Rings in which Boromir learns to overcome Elvish workplace oppression by writing fanfic. The only interesting aspect is the horrifying lack of self-awareness in the author.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND AMANDA MARCOTTE'S PROBLEM. ANN CLEARLY WAS NOT ATTACKING HER. ANN'S SUPPOSEDLY SEXIST ANTI-BREAST, ANTI-HOT COMMENTS ONLY APPLY TO BIG-BREASTED HOTTIES. AMANDA MARCOTTE HAS SMALL BREASTS AND IS NOT HOT.

AS AN ASIDE, ANN IS HOT AND HAS LOVELY BREASTS. AND I ACCIDENTALLY HIT THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON BECAUSE I WAS TEMPORARILY BLINDED BY THE SIMULTANEOUS CONTEMPLATION OF ANN ALTHOUSE AND AMANDA MARCOTTE. WHY RUIN THE FORMER WITH THE LATTER? WHY? WHY?

Maxine Weiss, can you please elaborate? Gals like Amanda Marcotte, or gals like Jill from Feministe and other women who were harrassed on AutoAdmit? And are you trying to say that the harrassment isn't a problem unless someone actually gets raped? ...that it isn't a problem up to and including the rape? I need to know whether I should wish that someone would light you on fire, or if hoping that you fall into a hole is good enough. It is nauseating that you think it is still acceptable to insult someone based on their marriageability or their lack of sexiness. (Are you really going to fault someone for being "not quite ready for Playboy"? The same could be said about Althouse, since I don't think Playboy allows sixty-somethings to grace its pages. Why would anyone want to read the blog of someone obviously so worthless?)

Revenant, "bos0x is the kind of person that doesn't understand the English language" does not mean "bos0x said that he doesn't understand the English language". (By the way, you are the kind of failure that would needlessly rehash something Seven Machos said, only even less eloquently. Twice, even!) I am truly sorry, that distinction has nothing to do with the word "kind", I am an idiot for saying so. Now shut the hell up, kthxs.

"Can't deal with the substance of the post, so call the woman hysterical"

If Ann can or cannot handle the substance of your post is actually not relevant here, since the evidence that you are hysterical is pretty overwhelming.

If the applicability of the hysterical description was at issue, then your retort might be an effective one. However, you come across as a screeching parody of a conservative's caricature of an unhinged feminist psycho bitch from hell.

You've made the bed you lay in with your own style and your own hatred. Clean the sheets, smooth the spread, and go about whatever it is you did before you decided to expose to the world your hateful vacuousness.

The first paragraph of bosox’s 2:03 a.m. comment is a lot more fun if you read it like one of those perplexed, overloading androids in “I, Mudd”, giving its robot death speech with the blinking necklace badge and the smoke coming out of its ears.

Althouse is constantly critiqued/attacked on the left wing blogosphere..Places like Padagon…Lawyers Guns Money..

For three reasons (in my judgment)#1. She is a woman#2. She is an Academic.#3. She won’t toe their line.

Now- I’m no fawning fan of the thoughts of our lovely host-however the above three strike me as obvious. The Left knows enough to savagely protect its own space. Call it the Clarence Thomas effect….but a blogger like Ann cannot be simply be allowed to have contrarian opinion.

I dont think its possible to split hairs any finer than Bosox has done--I dont see where anyone has approved of the juvenile comments on the admit blog about women. Most of the commenters here have deemed them juvenile, sexist, silly and whatever.

I think Maxine has pretty well nailed it--if fact, its almost like that great 1950s song "standing on the corner watching all the girls go by..that cant put you in jail for what you are thinking...."

While very few people might not approve of what the folks are saying on that blog, doesnt mean that they are rapists, killers or anything else--Prior restraint, which I infer from what bosox and amanda et al are saying is what they want to see, doesnt seem to me to be the best way to go about it. The best way is simply to ignore the comments and get on with your life, rather than rail against something you arent going to fix anyway.

This is what I love about this blog. It's like an acid trip tour through a deranged Ripley's Republican Theme Park where no Republican are ever wrong or remotely guilty of anything, under any circumstances, no matter what. And in the Roomful of Mirrors Scooter Libby appears as Joe Wilson behind bars. Or his wife. Or Tim Russert. Or his neighbor. Or Sandy Berger. Or Arianna Huffington.

Do you use some sort of auto-post-generator or something? Throw in a noun or two and out comes the anti-republican screed?

I ask because your comment bears no relation whatsoever to the ongoing discussion, which is a disagreemnt between two left of center women about how badly photos of herself online might hurt a woman's job prospects.

Maxine Weiss: Listen to me: Jill set forth the assertion that Internet gossip leads to rape. That's what she contends. Ok, I'd like to see proof of that.

As far as I can tell (the only Feministe I've read is "Hi, I'm Jill, and scummy..."), Jill has never made that assertion or anything remotely like it. And it wasn't Jill that claimed to be stalked at the gym; it was one of the women quoted in the article. Your demands are pretty ironic considering your abysmal comprehension skills.

we are all waiting patiently for Jill to get herself raped

Get herself raped? Not only are you hoping that someone is assaulted for the heinous crime of being upset that strangers are talking about how much they want to rape her, you're claiming that it's her own fault. These women are being targeted because they go to the same law school as the sexist losers on AutoAdmit, not because AutoAdmit users saw them at the gym and thought they were hot, or whatever other reason your tiny mind has come up with. So, basically, Jill would be getting herself raped for going to law school. I mean, does she think she's smart or something, that she cannot simply read a book in the privacy of her own home?

Jill also claims that she's so hot that men are traveling far and wide to get a look at her doing calisthenics at the gym.

These women are personally harrassed until they are afraid to go about their daily lives because they are afraid of people following them around to gawk and snap pictures that they can later claim to masturbate to. This is not flattery, and, judging by the things the women are saying, they do not feel flattered. If you think that Jill's purpose in writing that blog post was just to stroke her ego, you are one sick, idiotic fuck.

Apparently Jill has such a hot body, that she cannot simply use a treadmill in the privacy of her own home, she must visit a public Gym.....

Oh okay, so a woman wouldn't go to the gym unless she was an attention-seeking narcissist? Your comments are extraordinary even for the Althouse blog. Do you realize that exercise is very healthy? Also, I can immediately think of three reasons why someone would not want to buy a treadmill: they're expensive, unsightly and enormous. And I don't want to imply that you're the kind of vain slut that would do such a thing, but if you've ever been to a gym, you'd know that they have types of exercise equipment other than treadmills at gyms. So what you're saying is that women should spend hundreds of dollars, sacrifice a significant part of the floor space in their home, and forgo the variety of exercise equipment that a gym has for the sake of...modesty? And that Jill does otherwise means that she is arrogant and undeserving of sympathy?

But, okay, suppose that a woman did want to go to the gym only to make her body look better. Suppose that she did, horror of horrors, feel that she was attractive on top of that. This means that she deserves to be stalked? Because otherwise she would have stayed home and done sit ups, right?

Anyway, I don't know what you're even doing on internet. Do you have something interesting to say? Then go write a goddamn grocery list. I can't believe that you'd be so audacious as to show off your ideas in public, you immodest tramp.

Roger, first of all, I don't recall ever commenting on anyone's approval of the AutoAdmit comments. But now that you bring it up, sure, at least Maxine Weiss tacitly approves of the sexist behavior on AutoAdmit. She apparently has no sympathy for the women that were harrassed because none of them have been raped yet. So it seems that sexist comments and stalking are okay by her (it's not rape!), especially since she, for some bizarre reason, believes Jill goes to the gym to show everyone how toned she is (despite the fact that, in an addendum to her post, she describes herself as "short and round") and thus is asking for it.

I think Maxine has pretty well nailed it

Are you serious? It's bad enough that Maxine wrote that deranged, misogynistic whine, but to have someone agree with it? I'm not sure which one of you is more repulsive.

Bosox--to add to MMs comment, even if you had read Maxine's comments, it is not clear to me that you could comprehend them--your participation on this comment thread has clearly demonstrated either (1) a lack of reading comprehension or (2)willful ignorance.

MM said: "I should add that it's not just Maxine's comments in this thread. You really have to read her for days or weeks to grasp the true Maxinity."

I still don't get Maxine, and I've been at it for over a year (no offense, Maxine. I'll keep trying.) :-)

Of all of the funny stuff I read here, my favorite by far is the assertion that Ann is a conservative. I'm sure most make the assertion as a kind of insult, but for those of you who really believe it, it speaks volumes about your worldview. Unfortunately, it's not possible for the reader to know which of you are which.

it actually speaks much more of those who think ann is somehow "left" of center because not all of her views are deranged...

Well if *all* her views were deranged she wouldn't be "left of center" -- she'd just be "left".

But her lack of any conservative views at all -- unless disliking Democrats counts, in which case Noam Chomsky's a conservative too -- obviously disqualifies her as a conservative. That just leaves "center" and "left" as options.

NL: A considered answer. But Guiliani and Lieberman are both pro-chice. Guiliani and Lieberman are both pro-gay-rights. Guiliani and Lieberman are both pro-gun-control. Midway between these two is a moderate Republican? Probably, but midway between these two is certainly not a conservative. Oui?

MikeThe honest answer to your question is I don't think she is a classic conservative - but whatever her persuasion is she is entitled to it, to blog about it, to decide what to blog about, and to tell someone to get out of her face.

It's very important for some people to try to portray Ann as a conservative. They can't accept the fact that a woman acedemic doesn't religiously toe the left's ideological line.

For such folks calling someone a conservative is simply a dishonest attempt to delegitimize the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them, no matter where they fall on the political spectrums.

The fact that Ann, who doesn't really hold any conservative opinions of her own, is sometimes critical of other leftists, is anathema to these folks: they demand blind unswerving unthinking lockstep conformity. 'Apostates' will be severely prosecuted!